Messages - radiant=ANIME WITCHES

Nice post. Really interesting band, I've only heard about half of their albums but I've enjoyed them all. Taps into a bestial magic similar to Beherit and, weirdly, old Morbid Angel. Certainly not in aesthetics, but in the weird, disorienting composition and in the earnest, and in my opinion rather successful, attempt to capture the ancient and otherworldly with a technologically advanced soundset. Though I think this last point can be made about a lot of excellent metal releases.

This is probably well known by now but the vocalist and I'm guessing primary composer has written a pretty substantial number of books on magick, mostly of the infernal kind. I've read a few of them, and while they are complete nonsense, they are rather compelling nonsense, with their litanies of arcane names and esoteric rituals. Kind of has the same appeal of pulp fantasy lit where the narrator/crazed magician in the jungle intones for several paragraphs a list ancient gods and warriors and, although we realize that this list is strictly meaningless, it really draws the reader deeper into fictional world. The utter meaningless of such passages and the subsequent urge to fill this gap with fantasy is probably what makes this technique so effective. Back on track, Black Funeral's music, and a lot of metal really, tap into this tendency of the mind. I think it in part is made more powerful by the artist's belief in the reality of the world he portrays. The power of delusion in the creative process is, I think, underestimated.

Once you've insulted the person you're talking to you've ended the discussion. Nothing more productive will come of it. You're not convincing anyone - they are no longer of a mind to be convinced.

No one walks away from a discussion on the internet suddenly convinced of the opposition's opinion. Usually they walk away from the discussion convinced that they have obliterated the competition with the clarity of their logic, the eloquence of their rhetoric, the assuredness of their sacred opinion, etc etc etc. The object of arguments is not to change people's minds, but to make a point, and then if there is opposition, to further refine your point in answer to them.

Of course being an asshole doesn't add to this, but it certainly makes the act of writing more entertaining and can goad others into distraction. Sorry if that's a little too low-brow for this crowd!

The snarkiest trolls tend to have self-depreciating names - shithead.. or something that means shit-eater, or they underscore their misery as though its a badge of honor.

Thanks for the free psychoanalysis! This is amusing coming from a guy whose handle comes from an internet meme making fun of a kid who committed suicide, BUT LET'S NOT MAKE IT PERSONAL GUYS.

Anyway, despite being a "snarky socialist troll bastard" or w/e, I think the the majority of the content I posted has been quite relevant to the discussion at hand and directly addresses issues brought up in this thread. I think the same can be said for most of the posts in here, including those made by MY SWORN ADVERSARY Umbrage. As long as it doesn't become a topic about how people's internet names betray the true nature of their feelings of self-worthless anxiety and frustration with society and the world I don't see what the problem is.

Cool, a strawman argument! I was wondering how long it would take you guys. Oh well I got you back with my strawman about autotune. When did you ever hear me praise Severed Ways? I never did because I was unimpressed by that movie. So go listen to some autotune because you clearly said you don't mind studio techniques like that. According to your logic if a retard can make art which is 99% based on technology it makes it equal to an honest artist who puts 100% talent and effort into something? Or was that idea completely lost on you?

When did you hear me say that you like Severed Ways? And when did linking to a google search constitute an argument? That was included merely as a humorous aside on the quality of "indie" film-making versus "dependent" film-making -- and by humorous I mean humorous to myself, the only person who matters.

Regarding "100% talent" vs. "art based on technology or w/e", it is a common misconception that the the great artist is a lone genius, working against the tide of history or some other such bullshit. We take any profound and beautiful work, however, and behind it lies much more than one man's vision. Take Beethoven's 9th -- at its forefront is the impassioned and brilliant composer himself, but behind it lies the entire history of European music until that point as well as the most advanced musical technology of the era: the symphony orchestra. Beethoven's symphonies hinged as much on technology as they did his own personal genius. For further thought: imagine if Beethoven was plucked out of the time-space continuum at birth and dropped into ancient Judea. Would he be able to create such beautiful works if he only had the fledgling Semitic musical tradition plus a few flutes and tambourines to work with?

But if technology enables the greater minds to produce ever more beautiful works, does it not enable the tasteless retards to create the beautiful as well? Of course not! In fact, in the hands of a tasteless retard, higher technology will produce ever more nauseating and infantile trash. You might be inclined to deny it the name "art," but it still is, even if it is excrable art.

In theater when an actor is playing he has to give everything in one performance, in a movie when someone is acting they can redo the shoot 200 times if they want to. When an actor fucks up on stage he fucks up the whole performance. When an actor fucks up a shoot he just gets a scolding from the director.

Another question on this point: does the tendency of novelists, or poets, since you seem more receptive to them, to extensively revise their work, sometimes over the course of years, invalidate the novel or poem as art? If not, why are movies receive exceptional treatment in this regard?

Quote from: Umbrage

Lol, ok so the Sistine Chapel was commissioned by a fabulously wealthy Pope (and accused sodomite!! lol) and then completed by a reluctant Michelangelo and a dozen or so assistants... And thankfully, the Sistine Chapel was made by one man simply because he had to find something to do with his Fridays... Are you paying attention to your own words here? You're contradiction yourself in the same paragraph by now.

Since we are relatively well-educated and well-read I thought that the EXTREMELY SUPER-DUPER complex rhetorical devices employed in that paragraph would be easily understood; however, I perhaps misjudged the reading level on this board. The statement beginning with "If..." is a conditional statement; it makes no claims about the history of the Sistine Chapel, but proposes a possible scenario in the event that a certain situation, the "condition," is true. The statement beginning with "Thankfully..." is a declarative statement, and claims that such-and-such is, contrary to the hypothetical "condition" is actually the case.

The REALLY difficult part of this complex literary gambit is that the declarative statement is actually FALSE and the original condition is actually TRUE. I did this to emphasize the absurdity of the idea that a commercial motive invalidates an artwork, and because I thought, wrongly it seems, that most people would be smart enough to see, or at least google, which was true. However, I totally understand how one could think "I'm contradiction myself," especially if one has only a cursory understanding of the nuances of human speech.

Quote from: Umbrage

No this thread doesn't. And no the function of art isn't. But yes you really should have gotten some sleep before you posted that random nonsense.

This thread is about why movies are just entertainment and coincidentally how some people confuse art with entertainment just because they were so entertained. Are rollercoasters or these things art to you guys too? If you spend long enough on them you'll probably start thinking they are. That is what it all boils down to.

A last quick question: are there any great works of art that you subject yourself to that you do not enjoy? Of course, differences of tastes may prohibit your enjoyment of certain works, but do you ever willingly put in a CD and stare dejected into space, or look at a painting you hung on your wall and scowl and contentedly think "O what an ugly painting!" or read your favorite poem and wallow in a pit of misery and self-hatred?

I'm going to go ahead and say, "probably not," and this is because art that "works" is art that gives pleasure to its audience. This is of course not the only thing that art does -- art also immerses the audience into another world. (And for this reason why we don't call rollercoasters or inflatable jumpy-things art, although I'm sure someone could make an argument for it if they were bored) Isn't that what an effective movie does? Isn't that what an effective painting or The Tempest do as well?

Really, you should have at least gotten an education before you posted all that random nonsense.

When someone makes a painting they are putting their emotions into a work of art. They are creating something. When someone is making a movie they're just capturing pretty images (and later photoshopping the hell out of them).

And let me guess, the emotional residue of their feelings resides in the paint, right?

And isn't your definition of "making a movie" creation? C'mon dude, just think about it.

Quote

In theater when an actor is playing he has to give everything in one performance, in a movie when someone is acting they can redo the shoot 200 times if they want to. When an actor fucks up on stage he fucks up the whole performance. When an actor fucks up a shoot he just gets a scolding from the director.

I think istaros' response was perfectly fitting.

Quote

Other than that there's obviously the commercial aspect of big movies and the lack of funds for promising indie movies that fucks up film making in general.

This would be a valid response if some of the greatest works of art weren't funded by people with a lot of money, and some of the worst artistic abortions not created by people who were flat broke.

Why can't more money go to people writing movies about vikings shitting in the woods?

Quote

And like I wrote earlier just because a movie is weird doesn't make it art. I wouldn't consider weird music art either, just weird.

I'm not going to bother asking you what your definition of art is because it's probably retarded and/or contradictory. I won't give you mine either, since if I took the time to sit down and do it would inevitably be just as retarded and contradictory. But something sucking ass does not disqualify it from the title "art," it just gives it the title "art that sucks ass."

What we have here is a classic case of people valuing authorship and the process over the work itself. If my mommy were to tell me that the Sistine Chapel was commissioned by a fabulously wealthy Pope (and accused sodomite!! lol) and then completed by a reluctant Michelangelo and a dozen or so assistants, would that lessen my enjoyment of it as a piece of art? If it did, I would probably be the most pretentious hipster faggot ever born. Thankfully, the Sistine Chapel was made by one man simply because he had to find something to do with his Fridays, so I never have to confront this dilemma.

Really, this thread boils down to "what is the function of art?" And ultimately the function of art is to bring enjoyment to the audience. "Good art" is art that brings substantial enjoyment to the audience, whereas "bad art" is art that brings very little, and may in fact actually bring nausea, disgust, hatred, or aneurysms. There's more to say on that subject and I'm sure some people have found the two preceding sentences blasphemous/idiotic but I really ought to sleep now...

There is no opposite to "modern". "Modern" is a point between "past" and "future". The idea is not to revert to some perceptibly "pure" time of antiquity, but, rather, to build the future keeping the past and the resulting present firmly in mind when making decisions. The astute observation has been made that a number of aspects of living have degraded in (relatively) recent years. Rather than continue the degradation, it would make more sense to go back to what we know works, and try a different path (system restore, anyone? "Last known good save"?).

The bolded is actually a really fucking good point, and proves my earlier reaction knee-jerk.

Anyway, what exactly has degraded over the years? I think it's clear that, whatever the answer, there is sufficient evidence to conclude that attitudes on sex are not among them. I think it's also clear that a return to previous systems of value is neither possible nor desirable...

Did you read my previous reply? None of the past worship that you claim is going has been in this thread, or in the works of any of the writers of the website. The fact that you think it is demonstrates that you have absolutely no idea what they're talking about.

I read your previous reply, and found it perfectly sensible. Not feeling the need to prematurely end my thankless existence, I nodded sagely and passed over it. Thus, when I came across a post containing the B.S. phrase "the ancients," I quoted it, as you may have noted, and responded to that post. I am rather proud of that post, for I managed to write the entire thing without using the words "retarded faggot," which I am told gives away my true age at sixteen.

Anyway, as for the lack of past-worship in this thread and throughout this website, you probably are just not paying enough attention, but this very thread is an indictment of the vulgarity of "modern" sexual practice, as opposed to ... well, what's the opposite of modern?

I think celibacy and the elevation of chastity is as troubling as rampant promiscuity - both are simply different sides of the same coin, both remove sex from any holistic context. The ancients viewed sex as a 'process' - as a means to an end, like engendering love and beauty, or as erotic art or even in reverence of the fertility gods. The modern view of sex is that sex is merely a product; either to be used superficially without any kind of sacralization, or something that serves only a biological-materialist function (procreation). Both are emblematic of the same scourge of Modernism - atomization of the individual.

Whenever I hear someone refer to "the ancients" as some sort of mythical, unified entity I want to blow my fucking brains out. "THE ANCIENT WORLD" (i.e. a pseudohistorical period allegedly some 2000-3000 years ago when All Men believed in the Absolute, adhered to a Code of Pagan Honor, and respected the right of Woman to Fuck and Breed) is actually just a period in the history of the human species like all others, where a myriad of cultures had different, often inane views and where people fucked for fun, pleasure, biology, and God. We have the Karma Sutra, the usually joyful sexuality of the Greco-Roman gods, the agfe of chivalry -- and then we have prostitution, war rape, Roman orgies, hijra, sneaking into the temple to masturbate to the Aphrodite of Cnidus, irrumatio, lewd jokes in Greek comedy. Can we stop acting like this shit is all new?

I wont argue against the idea that modern man has a vastly different -- perhaps inferior -- worldview than say, an ancient Greek, and this is perhaps a result of the democratic movement and the age of commodification, but it seems to me that the diversity of sexual practice (and this is the origin of all values on sex) has, refreshingly, not changed much at all.

Putting words in my mouth much? Coming from a background in music theory, if you transpose a melodic progression into a different key, or play it on a different instrument, the notation remains the same. I never saw anything more being said when the idea that aesthetic does not equal content was suggested. I'm not even a fan of the surf rock tunes, I just found your use of language akin to a 16 year old with something to prove.

In my first paragraph I wasn't commenting on your opinion of the style vs. composition issue; I was explaining my astonishment at the idiocy expressed earlier in this thread by otherwise intelligent people who like metal (maybe they even play it!) that composition is what makes music great, rather than a unity between style and technique, (which I referred to as aesthetics, not necessarily because it was the most correct word but because it was the most expedient) and composition. But yeah, I should have been clearer there, I always forget that everyone on the internet feels that everyone is trying to insult their beliefs. They're probably right in thinking so, especially when speaking with dickshits like me, but still...

And thanks for the advanced music theory lesson! However, I am struggling to see what your brilliantly lucid explanation adds to the discussion. Yes, you can technically transcribe almost any piece of music to any key to be played on another instrument, but we have to make some considerations beforehand: CAN the instrument play the piece, and will it fit with the intention of the piece? This should be self-evident to anyone who has seriously played music in any form. Also self-evident: a great artist will choose tools, style, and composition that further the vision of the work. Any style or technique that does not fit or even completely destroys the vision (as is the case with our black metal beach bums) is an artistic mistake, and at worst, an insult to the listener's taste. I almost feel stupid having to say such obvious things, and I'd like to assume that everyone here thinks this way, though perhaps I'm wrong...

Case in point: Emperor is not just glorious for the brilliant harmonic of "I am the Black Wizard," they are brilliant for choosing the perfect technique and style to capture their youthful love of malevolence, their delirious rapture with the beautiful forces of the dark. It doesn't even matter if these effects were chosen purposefully or arose out of necessity, the overall impact of the music is marvelous and immersive. Now, "Surf Wizards" expresses none of these feelings, and as you probably noticed, is pretty boring and vapid; one would have to be very new to music or very high to find lose themselves in the lush soundscapes of "Surf Wizards". Cargest would tell us it is "awe-inspiring," Emperor "played in an interesting way," but he likes Belus. (That was a joke! Not a cheap-shot!) It is not "awe-inspiring," in fact it inspires nothing except a modest desire to click on the original Emperor song, which YouTube thoughtfully suggests to us on the side of the screen.

So, my original beef: a thread that should have been an obvious example of the importance of a finely-tuned aesthetic sense is instead brought into lala land by Belus fans.

I still like the melodies they're using, and the aesthetic doesn't even bother me that much, if at all. Why are you so angry that people may have an idea that you don't have? Is it because you've fashioned yourself as an authority?

Now that that issue is explained, I am more than a little dumbfounded that on the forum for the greatest English-language metal website on the internet, a website that found style and technique so important that it features a map of styles and an index of many of the major techniques in the genre, as well as an explanation of how technical and stylistic developments helped pioneer more complex compositions and melody, that people could adhere to the mildly ludicrous belief that style and genre are not only unimportant, but unrelated to composition and say that lounge versions of Emperor are still great.

And if the best thing you can say about a song is "I like the melodies they're using, and the aesthetic doesn't even bother me that much," (the last clause here is priceless, in my authoritative opinion) then you probably would be better off listening to something where you could say "Fuck yes, these melodies are amazing and go perfectly well with the aesthetic!" But if you need a break from getting maximum enjoyment out of your listening time, be my guest!

I was forced to listen to this album and another by them, the name of which escapes me. The other album was just crap. This album was listenable but I didn't find anything in it that you describe. This album felt like it was trying desperately to say something, but could never quite articulate a coherent idea. I would suggest that you may have been looking for something in this record and therefore saw something that wasn't really there . Alternatively, it is possible that since I expected nothing, the meaning escaped me. Has anyone else heard this? Was I blinded by my cynicism or not?

The bolded sentence in your above post is true. it is also true of our reactions to black metal, death metal, Tolkein, and anything else under the sun when we impart transcendental meaning unto it; this view of art is a common sickness on the ANUS forums.

I used to really like Neurosis. Or, rather, I listened to them and really tried to like it. I don't know why, probably because I thought it was the heaviest shit ever dropped and somehow the heaviness would rub off on me. But I've always found them plodding and boring and was merely unable to admit my own feelings to myself. They're competent, have a good sense of atmosphere, but are not for me.

Transcendentalists and surf-rockers both oughta shut the fuck up. The original "I am the Black Wizards" is way more "fun" than the surf-rock version because fun includes face-meltingly serious tremolo guitars, blastbeats, and tortured screams from the UNSILENT ABYSS. (My definition also includes gay-ass anime techno remixes but keep that shit out of my metal. In Flames and Dark Tranquility have proven the viability of that route...) I thought people here listened to metal because they like it (i.e. they find it "fun"). Apparently we listen to metal because it imparts truth OR because we find it compositionally beautiful. Let me go gargle on a cock to wash the taste of bullshit out of my mouth.

And @ the COMPLETELY RETARDED IDEA that composition is somehow the most important aspect: while the composition of something is indeed important, ignoring aesthetics is a critical mistake. Composition and aesthetics should always complement each other, and in one sense are the same fucking thing. Imagine taking a wonderful and complex game game -- say, civilization -- and replacing all the units with porn stars. Or, taking Humphrey Bogart out of Casablanca and sticking in Ronald Reagan. Replacing all the violins in Beethoven's ninth with xylaphones. Michaelangelo's David covered in pink polka dots. "But, it's still David! You should like it, for god's sake!" No you faggot it's David covered in ungodly pink polka dots.

Notice in some of these cases a "purely aesthetic" change would actually change the composition of the work (you can't do as much with Reagan or a xylophone as you could with Bogart or a violin). Surf rock, just in the realm of technique (instrumentation, playing style) is a more limited form of music than metal. Thus, instead of Emperor, we have something a little bit (actually a whole fucking lottabit) less than Emperor. Music I can play softly in the background while entertaining guests on my private yacht, but I'd be hard-pressed to down a Jameson and bang my fucking head to it while cooking breakfast.

You fuckers just got CALLED. Don't even bother replying, I'm going to spend the next two weeks washing your bullshit off by snorkeling off my private yacht in the caribbean, jesus fucking dicks

1. Dragonforce are only a good example at the most shallow, face value. An introduction of your main thesis.

2. They don't believe in the message; if it isn't clear from the music, read an interview with them. Furthering of the thesis.

3. They are admittedly tongue-in-cheek in the most "ironic" possible way. Development of the previous sentence

4. Also, they fake it on their instruments and incorporate gamer influence into their music. The sentence in question. At first glance it appears to continue to provide evidence for your central thesis, the shallowness of Dragonforce. The word "also" denotes that the following clauses will directly relate to and support the previous sentences. The conjunction "and" in the middle of the sentence joins "they fake it on their instruments" with "they incorporate gamer influence" and implies that these two clauses aim toward the same goal: discrediting Dragonforce as a band. However, later the author claims that the allusion to games was not meant in any discrediting sense; thus making it the only not-negative point listed in the previous sentences. This mystery will undoubtedly be cleared up in the fifth sentence.

5. Good or bad regardless, they are power metal deviants and not a good example. Aaaand once again a restatement of the original theme. The mystery remains...

Surely you can see how I arrived at my mistaken conclusion. In fact, if I was a douche, I'd suggest that this inclusion of a clause with supposedly no relation to the rest of your paragraph is symptomatic of an eighth-grade writing level, but I'm not a douche. In fact, I'm a nice guy, especially on the internet. And I sincerely apologize for agreeing with you at the start of my post. That was uncalled for by me, and thinking back on it I'm actually pretty ashamed. I forgot my only job on this forum was to disrespectfully disagree with everyone. This won't happen again, believe me.

Side note: lots and lots of gamers/geeks/anime fans/nerds are hipsters, and many of these hipster geeks listen to shitfucking metal like Rhapsody, Dragonforce, and that goddamn pirate band Alestorm. This is not a problem relegated to the music world.

I laughed while reading the article, as if listening to David Bowie with the lights off, the bathroom door locked, and £12,000 speakers will somehow unlock a deeper artistic meaning in classic butt-rock. Doing the same for metal would strike me as equally ludicrous. Yes, metal at its best is beautiful and complex, but just as importantly vicious, savage, the sonic equivalent of Conan the Cimmerian. Best enjoyed with a beer, copious headbanging, and whatever speakers do the job.

And lol @ people trying to compare their music to Dickens or whatever ye olde writer they choose. Insecurity much? Besides, I can see no joy in reading a Dickens novel from front to end in one sitting. I doubt the Victorians did either, as many of his major works originally appeared serially.